140. In its oral submissions, the Respondent State contends that, pursuant to Article 4 of the host agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the ICTR, and in compliance with Article 37(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Applicant's wife enjoyed the inviolability of her private residence. It is the Respondent State's contention that, as such, it complied with its related duties by protecting the deceased's properties and allowing her employer, the ICTR, to remove them. The Respondent State declared that the items found in the house at the time of arrest were handed over to the ICTR in accordance with the applicable protocol on United Nations' immunity rules . ••• 141. The Court recalls that, as Article 14 of the Charter provides, "The right to property shall be guaranteed". The issue in dispute in the instant case is that of the Respondent State's responsibility regarding the disposal of the Appiicant's property. 142. The Court notes that the fact that police officers of the Respondent State were put in charge of the Applicant's house after arrest is not disputed. However, the Applicant did not challenge the Respondent State's contention that it handed over all the items found in the house to the ICTR as per an outstanding agreement and in line with its international obligations as earlier recalled. 143. The Court is of the view that in such circumstances, the Respondent State's responsibility is not established regarding the said properties. 144. As a consequence of the above, the Court dismisses the allegation of violation of the right to property protected by Article 14 of the Charter. D. Allegation that the Applicant suffered mental anguish 35